Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We kick the ass of the ruling class

Boycott "Black Friday!" Solidarity with Striking Chinese Workers!

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 25, 2011, 1:36 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

chinese police

This Black Friday, as millions of Americans scramble to find the "best deals" on consumer goods, thousands of Chinese manufacturing workers are striking to demand livable wages, job security, and other basic rights. In Huangjiang alone, 8,000 striking shoe factory workers took the streets Thursday, blocking roads and standing down lines of riot police. Their factory, owned Yue Yuen Industrial Holdings, is a major provider to the sportswear company New Balance.

It seems fair to say these workers are striking for a "new balance" with their management, and the system of global exploitation that management serves. Facing police repression and media censorship, striking Chinese workers are standing up against the same unfair economic system we are fighting on Wall Street and across the world. Today, Occupiers everywhere are standing up to Boycott Black Friday in an effort to raise awareness about the exploitation and inequalities that produce the goods Americans purchase.

In a rush to get the best deals on merchandise, some shoppers in the U.S. have already turned on one another. News agencies are reporting that a woman in California pepper-sprayed another group of shoppers so she could get a better place in line. This is exactly what the 1% wants: They don't have to pepper-spray the 99% in the United States, because we are pepper-spraying one another, and we are too distracted by consumption to notice that the majority of the products we buy in North America are being produced by workers who are struggling for their basic rights abroad.

We offer an alternative. Countless Occupations have called for a nationwide boycott in support of Buy Nothing Day. Last night, members of Occupy Chicago joined camp-outs in front of department stores like Sears and Best Buy, hoping to start dialog with shoppers while also highlighting the hypocrisy that the government is allowing people to camp in public if they have money to spend on a brand new flat screen TV, but violently attacking homeless people and protesters who camp in public to protest economic inequality. Today, Chicogoans are planning to carol around the downtown shopping district.

protesters in Chicago

Meanwhile, Occupy Atlanta, including many former employees of large retailers, mic-checked crowds (VIDEO) of Black Friday shoppers around midnight last night, while Occupy Portland and surrounding cities planned to Occupy a Wal-Mart (but not buy anything) today. Occupy Boston, Occupy DC, and other cities are hosting "Really Really Free Markets" to share goods with whomever needs them, proving that another world -- and an economy where we take care of one another's needs instead of corporate profits -- is possible. Here in New York, there is a march leaving at 2pm from Liberty Square to Foley Square to mark Black Friday.

Workers in China, in the U.S., and everywhere deserve fair compensation and an equal share in the prosperity our labor produces. In a season defined by consumption and consumerism, we stand in solidarity with the workers of China, and with all those who rise up for the global 99%!


  • Occupy El Paso mic checked a crowd inside Wal-Mart, decrying the evils of union-busting and reminding shoppers of the true cost of low prices -- worker exploitation! VIDEO
  • Up to 10 people were reported arrested at Occupy KC during a Black Friday protest at a Wal Mart.
  • Occupy San Diego mic checked a Wal Mart
  • In Florida, Occupy Tampa mic checked a Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy urging consumers to be way of debt and to buy local instead VIDEO
  • Occupy Oakland dropped a "shop local" banner on an IKEA, and then flash mobbed a Target in Emeryville
  • Occupy San Francisco marched around the Union Square shopping center, nonviolently blocking the entrance to an Armani Exchange and causing an Old Navy to lock their doors

black friday



Read the Rules
[-] 13 points by Mark01 (82) 3 years ago

now were talking!!! hit the 1% in their factories!!!

[-] 22 points by sqrltyler (207) 3 years ago

The dark truth behind the OWS crackdown:


We have struck a chord that will affect the corrupt politicians where it hurts the most, in their pocketbooks.

We must continue to get our agenda heard, as a vast majority of Americans are in support of these items:

No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics.

No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation. Restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

Instead of letting the media define what we stand for, let's define it for them.

[-] 3 points by afreak (29) from Kensington, England 3 years ago

Thank you so much for this find.

[-] 1 points by jdjay (34) 3 years ago

It's time to hit the 1% with our own global austerity program, global labor strikes. They are the wealth but we are the labor. Make Chomsky's dream a reality. Global working class solidarity is their worst nightmare.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

Thank you. Thank you!

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 3 years ago

So far the only thing on here that makes some sense. Thank you much




[-] 0 points by icfmike (173) 3 years ago

Hope they don't go a knockin' on Naomi Wolf's door...

[-] -1 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Funny - I've been trying to point this out all along - change legislation, protest government & politicians, not Wall St. But since I am critical of what OWS has been dong so far, I am labelled a troll. It is exactly this closed-minded thinking that will doom OWS. You need to change your focus to something constructive instead of reactionary if you hope to affect change. This post from sqrltyler is a step in the right direction.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 3 years ago

I know how you feel, everyone seems to think there is glamor or something in protesting and avoids the progress that could be made through voting for the right candidates. It's a national movement, every big city occupy could field a man or woman for congress.

[-] 3 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

and i think that's where it is going... but i also believe that this is the beginning of a long haul... it's completely natural for humans to fear and lash out against what they don't understand. This movement is hard to "understand" right now... but that will change. What if the problem is not the people we vote to represent us in the system? What if the problem is deep-rooted in the system itself? After years of voting in our current system.. on 3 party sides, it has become obvious to me that we live for and accept merely an illusion of democracy.Your and my votes have been bought and sold to the highest bidder. The political corruption platforms must be completely dismantled in order to move forward. I think this is truly an issue the 99% can get behind.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 3 years ago

True to a large extent, that's why groups that can turn out a vote get attention from politicians. AARP, NAACP, NRA, environmental groups all manage to influence congress. Look what the environmental lobby did recently, Obama postponed that pipeline, which may kill it without him actually saying it was good or bad. Typical politician, but the point is the environmental lobby got results.

I doubt you could throw out the current system when 85% of the country is working and somewhat content. Black Friday sales were apparently good so action is going to have to be in small increments.

[-] 3 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

Absolutely. I am employed and somewhat content.... but for me... being somewhat content is not enough for what I intend to leave behind for my children. Apathy has spiraled out of control... It's time.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Im with ya. I want to leave my kids with ALOT, it is the only reason I work as hard as I do.

[-] 3 points by monicab (6) 3 years ago

"leave my kids with ALOT" - Wow! Apathy, in my book, hasn't spiraled in terms of monetary percentages as much as it has spiraled in terms of the value of what we leave our kids. If parents had thought less about leaving money, and kids hadn't been raised to believe in the work of their parents' being a birthright in terms of a huge inheritance, maybe subsequent generations would have been better prepared to prevent the need for OWS. The "ALOT" I would suggest we leave our kids is capability, a strong skill base, an awareness of a responsibility to themselves for their future, less reliance on a government that doesn't care.

[-] 1 points by GamesStrategyGamblingScience (6) from Elmhurst, IL 3 years ago

Great point. If your parental focus is leaving your children "a house, some cash, and [your] business", you're making a mistake that's been tragically highlighted countless times over the last few years. When you're 50 and the bankers have stolen your house and cash, and left your business unable to compete with mega-corps, what will your kids do?

Real economic security comes not from your corporate job, but from your capacity to produce valued work going forward, i.e. your skills and education. Like the material wealth you'd like to accumulate and pass on, your job can also disappear in a flash, completely beyond your control. What will happen to your kids if your job is shipped overseas or you become disabled?

What can you do? 1)Buy adequate insurance. 2)Dedicate yourself to continuing your education, increasing your skills and maintaining your relevance in the economy. Conditions are changing so fast now (and accelerating), you'll need to run to stand still. 3)Let that be the example for your children, and they'll have their best chance of success on their own.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 3 years ago

Dont worry, they will be all good with that. I guess I should clarify what a lot, to me, is:

A house, some cash, and my business.

The other stuff you mentioned should be assumed, but I agree with you that many arent getting even the basics of what really matters in life. The best way to get those later things across to kids is leading by example.

[-] 2 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

This is what I hope OWS will do. Put forth people from the movement to represent and run for office. There are plenty of good people within Occupy. We The People must Occupy Congress and form a new government.The current government representives must be removed with haste.Destruction of the middle and working class people has gone to far. We can no longer carry this weight on our backs.

The current 2 party system no longer works or benefits the 99% !

[-] 0 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Yes JPB950, that sounds more constructive. Unfortunately there appears to be a LOT of socialist-leaning types in OWS who don't believe the movement should have leaders, and from what I have seen are very aggressively against it. My argument is that politicians are not supposed to be leaders anyway - they are supposed to be representatives of the whole, but try telling that to some of the people in OWS lol.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 3 years ago

Hate to mention them, but the tea party seems leaderless, yet they managed to elect some reps. You can put together a committee and get things done, or just go from one action to another without direction.

[-] 1 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

I give credit where credit is due. Tea party made their point and there was no confrontations or damage, so I cant fault them for that. They do have smaller groups within the whole which have leaders though.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 3 years ago

If having a spokes person or leader of sorts helps achieve larger goals the group should really swallow their individual egos and get on with the work.

[-] 3 points by LvsPnthers (3) 3 years ago

It has to START somewhere and OWS IS the START!


[-] 0 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

True. It was promising to start with, but seems to be heading is the wrong direction imho.


[-] -2 points by JPB950 (2254) 3 years ago

You won't get anything if corrupt officials don't think you'll vote. Hold some voter registration action and support someone for congress that support your view.

The economic boycott may not be effective, Black Friday sales were up this year. In spite of the bad press over shopping violence.

[-] 2 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

You're absolutely right! The vote was designed to hold power over corrupt officials. The biggest problem is that it's not the officials that start off corrupt. It's the system that makes them that way. Voting alone will not change anything until we dismantle deep rooted political corruption platforms within the system. These are the cancers within our system that need addressed. "We the Sheeple" have been taught that all we need to do is vote and then our part is done. Look where that has gotten us.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 3 years ago

I suppose anyone in office a while will get corrupted, but until a better system is developed and accepted changing politicians frequently is all we can do. The problem is partly with ourselves too, everyone thinks congress is corrupt, but their guy is ok.

[-] 4 points by xxcONScIENcExx (172) 3 years ago

I think that is part of what OWS is accomplishing. Voting for our guy is not all we can do. People are awakening to the truth about how this system operates and are speaking up, sitting down, and having meaningful discussions.

[-] 1 points by infokat (25) 3 years ago

That's why I am for term limits.




[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

"yours “taking over our own workplaces” sounds a bit too 1917 for my stomach"

There´s really nothing controvercial about this if you think about it. It just means expanding democracy to the workplaces and communities. More democracy!

Pleace read "The Society We Should Strive For"

"I despise the Bolshevik revolution"

Me too. Leninism is awful.

What we need is a society based on Anarcho-Syndicalism/Libertarian Socialism, that is: non-hierarchical egalitarian democracy built from the bottom up.

"financed by zionists and performed by jews"

I gotta tellyou, I don´t like the sound of this. Stop blaming minorities and certain ethnic or religious groups!


[-] 1 points by Thinkdeer (250) 3 years ago

scapegoating gets us nowhere. Focus on what to build.

[-] 1 points by JeffersonNotMao (3) 3 years ago

Are are too ignorant to understand that YOU DO THE BIDDING OF THE 1%

I believe it was Lennin who once called people like you and I quote "Useful Idiots"

Meanwhile the majority of American society HATES YOU'RE IDEAS as they are Anti American to the core !!!

We like competion, private property and the abillity to chose what we do in life !

[-] 1 points by ClericTGLAM (11) from Middle, NJ 3 years ago

It's not about ideologies and alternatives to them , when democracy was created by the greeks it was a mind blowing event , that never extinguished , but in the 20-th century milions of men died in wars to "protect " them , to protect 2 big ideas : democracy and socialism . We dont want this kind of outcomes . Oh , and a 3-rd motive , was , is , and will be , a piece of worthless paper , reedemable in nothing , called euro , dollar , yen ...... money and greed . If we do not change ,we will self-destruct as a race .



[-] 0 points by shoesandtables (20) 3 years ago

A video showing the "WEALTH GAP" in the United States. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7tmZv1o5Ac


[-] -1 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Hit the 1% in their factories and they will just pass on the cost to the 99% with increased prices. You need to start thinking a bit more clearly and stop being reactionary. The government are the enablers - the only way to stop what is happening is with legislation. Protesting Wall St isn't going to do a damn thing.

[-] 2 points by mja (14) 3 years ago

politians are interchangable, thats why Wall st should be the main focus

[-] -1 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Fine. Sit there and protest at Wall St, and they will continue to mock you and nothing will change because it doesn't matter if you throw a tantrum, it's business as usual for them - they don't need your approval nor your votes. Politicians do. Starting to connect the dots yet?

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

Exactly. Striking and taking over our own workplaces and running them democratically ourselves, building democracy from the bottom up, should be prioritized more and more as our movement grows:

"The Transition Phase: The Road to Freedom"

"The Society We Should Strive For"

Noam Chomsky: Alternatives to Capitalism I

Noam Chomsky: Alternatives to Capitalism II

yours sff

[-] 0 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

You seem to have confused democracy with socialism my friend.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

Nope. libertarian socialism / anarcho-syndicalism just means expanding democracy to workplaces and communities. Building democracy from the bottom up

[-] 0 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

So in the situation where someone has worked their entire life to build up a business and has been successful, you want to take it from them and let 'the workers' run it instead. And what about the unlikely happenstance that this workers utopia is a huge success and you all make millions and open new factories up and employ more people.. I guess it will be ok for those new people to take everything you worked for and kick you to the curb, because that's only fair right? And then when they have success, guess what? It happens again. The end result - nobody works hard because in the end they lose it. In pure socialism, they never get it in the first place, no matter how hard they work, so why bother working hard? The lowest common denominator becomes the new norm. Great. You forget about human nature. It may not fit the utopian agenda, but you'll have to deal with it regardless. DOH!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

THis person has not "built it up" by himself, he´s had a lot of help. Society has given him most of the goods he´s enjoying and the workers have made him the profit and capital to "build" http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320872575_the_free_ride_society.html But are you rejecting the idea of democracy, and if not, shouldnt workplaces and communities be run democratically? It´s just common sense, my friend: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

Creativity and the need to work is human nature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8 that´s why Anarcho Syndicalism should be the social organization - a society where individuals can live out their creativity based on their own capacity

[-] 0 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Where the workers are abused (ie: sweat shops and the like), taxes are evaded, illegal shortcuts are taken, yes, I agree 100% these type of people should be dealt with severely, and it is because of them legislation needs to change. In the case where the owner is paying people a fair living wage, keeping to their legal obligations both in tax and the way they do business, and generally operating ethically, then no, I can not agree with you. The problem right now is that there are certain businesses that can operate within the law, but have so much money they can leverage things in their favor - hedge fund managers would be a classic example of this. This is where the law (as it stands now) fails us, but again, this is a change in legislation required to rectify it, not just a matter of charging into their offices and demanding a take-over.

.As far as a need to work being human nature - I definitely have to question that; the amount of lazy people I have had to deal with who seem to go out of their way to avoid work is disturbing.. it seems many would rather sit back and do nothing and demand their needs be supplied by basically anyone who earns more than they do. As much as there is a problem with greed, there is also a problem with entitlement.

That's my experience in life.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

What you say is totally irrelevant if you like democracy. Corporations are private tyrannies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk (watch the video before you answer please) If you like the idea of democracy you shouldnt favor institutions being run based on a tyrannical model. People should be able to have a say in the things that affect them, and should be in control of their own work, that means workplaces should be run democratically.

Of curse people become demotivated when you have to work in a totalitarian institution taking orders from the dictators that run the institution (CEOs owners etc) http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320871888_replace_capitalism_wi.html People feel alienated from their work. And when wages for working people stagnate and decline, and education in the US isn´t free (unlike many other industrilized countries) that´s not helping either. Creativity, engagement and other human characteristics like solidarity and atruism will come to the fore in a free society

[-] 0 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

I disagree. If the workers determine everything, then it is just as justified to say they are exploiting the employer. If a job is on offer at a reasonable living wage (which I what I said above) then how can it be tyrannical - this is not (yet) a serfdom where people are forced to work at a job whether they like it or not - you have freedom of choice to take that job or not, and to look for something else that suits you better if that is what you wish.

I don't think I earn as much as I probably should based on my experience and qualifications, but to call my working situation a tyrannical suffering under a totalitarian institution is utterly ridiculous. Yes I take orders, and I am compensated for it. If I was not being paid, then you'd have a point.

Also as I already said, for some, if you leave them in control of their own work and what they choose to do - guess what? The work ain't going to get done. I don't know what cotton-wool world you've been living in, but I'm talking about cold reality.

Sure if you live in a commune (which I did for a while years ago) and everyone is dedicated to the cause, it can work for a while, but all it takes is one person not pulling their weight and the whole thing collapses - I've seen it happen up close and personal in that situation, and I've seen it happen with the collapse of entire economies over the years. It is obtuse to deny this fact, which is what you appear to be doing.

Your theory may be idealistic, but practice is an entirely different thing. Many people, when given the choice, will behave like water and take the path of least resistance. This is a reality.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

The workers shouldn´t determine everything. There should be democracy on all levels, workplaces, communities, federations etc. The Society We Should Strive For

I did not say that you are suffering at work. I´m saying that a corporation has a totalitarian model. The CEO, owners etc, the people on the top of the hierarchy make decitions and give all the other people involved in the institution orders. The institution is not democratically run, ergo it´s a tyranny.

[-] 0 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Anything that is not a democracy but has some semblance of a hierarchical structure is a tyranny? LOL ..You said there should be democracy on all levels.. "levels" infers there is a hierarchical structure - workers, supervisors, bosses etc.. ergo a tyranny. Doh!

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

"Anything that is not a democracy but has some semblance of a hierarchical structure is a tyranny? LOL "

Your response is one of the effects of being brainwashed to think this kind of thing is acceptable. We have been brainwashed to accept such things in our society. Now, people are questioning them and are calling them out for being unfair. And people like you laugh at them.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

"Anything that is not a democracy but has some semblance of a hierarchical structure is a tyranny?"

Yes, hierarchies that are not democratic are tyrannical.

"You said there should be democracy on all levels.. "levels" infers there is a hierarchical structure"

I have never said that I necessarily oppose all kinds of hierarchies in any way shape or form, What Im saying is that I oppose hierarchies that are not democratic. There has to be representation even in an Anarcho-Syndicalist society, but they would be democraticaally elected recallable delegates representing the group/organization to which they belong.

[-] 0 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

And who decides when the line is crossed between your version of democracy and the next persons' version? I think I see what you are trying to get at, but your interpretation is (as I understand it) subjective, and at the moment sounds awfully contradictory as a result. In fact, I don't think this is something anyone can stick a pin in and say "this is what it is, and any other interpretation is wrong".. in fact doing so would, ironically, go completely against the idea of democracy. Fun, right? lol. When is a democracy not a democracy? I don't know - I'll have to check with everyone else. :)

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 3 years ago

You re making no sense.

[-] 0 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Try harder.

[-] 0 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

I will add that this entitlement issue is a relatively new thing - in as far as how widespread it is. There was always a small fraction of the populace who seemed to think they should not have to work or contribute in any way, but that small fraction has grown immensely in the last decade or two, in my experience. The majority of this experience is in westernized society though.

[-] 2 points by divineright (664) 3 years ago

And those people are called politicians. Lol.

[-] 1 points by Jimmy44 (-57) from New York, NY 3 years ago

ROFLMAO yes them too!

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

But then how will you post messages to web sites? Locally-grown computers?

[-] 5 points by Ubuntu (34) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

Corporations are not the problem, manufacturing is not the problem, corporate greed is the problem, profit over human life and sustainability is a problem. There can be cooperations that are not greedy. It is possible in a sustainable economy.


[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

A corporation's purpose is to make a profit. A corporation needs profit like humans need food and water. What corporation can you cite that is successful, yet isn't focused on making a profit? A successful-and-unprofitable corporation an oxymoron, because the success of a corporation is measured by its profitability.

[-] 4 points by Ubuntu (34) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

Corporations making profit is ,again, not the problem. Corporate greed is...as in if they are making profit off the suffering of people or by pushing something they know is not sustainable (or obviously destructive). Profit/money has a greater value than human life. This is an oxymoron because what is their wealth and power without people? Take humanity out of the equation and money has no value. The idea is to stop looking at your feet while you walk, look ahead, look forward.

[-] 2 points by red66 (9) 3 years ago

yes, you can't have democracy without the striving forward which is at its heart. competition, profit, the right to be wealthy, the right to succeed is the engine of capitalism..unrestrained financial evolution..if you toss out greed, you toss out capitalism and democracy ...this is all about accountability; those who sew should reap. when wall street roles the dice it should pay the price.

[-] 2 points by Ubuntu (34) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

When is Wall St. not rolling the dice?

I also disagree that democracy and capitalism are dependant upon greed. With that said I could care less what ism we decide upon as long as it works in favor of humanity and the earth. So if we have to scrap democracy and capitalism so be it. So far neither has worked. So far we have never seen a pure version of either so lets not be so precious about our isms. BTW unrestrained financial evolution is neither important nor possible so we should start by burning that bag of crap on the white house steps and have them stomp it out.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Democracy and capitalism are not the same thing, nor do they depend on each other. Just look at Scandinavia, in which countries have a mostly socialist economies. Equating democracy with capitalism is equating apples and oranges.

Democracy's forward stride is driven by changing perceptions of justice. Greed is not the engine for that.

The issue isn't about Wall Street paying the price: if there were no bail-out, the economy would have collapsed completely. Today's horrible unemployment would look like a walk in the park by comparison. Instead, the issue is making sure they can never roll OUR dice so recklessly again. And the issue is to make sure they can never capture our representatives and regulators again.

I agree that accountability is central, but it is the accountability of elected representative to US, the VOTERS, instead of those that bribe them, that is a main point this movement is trying to address.

Just to be clear, I am not anti-capitalist. I am against corruption and a specific flavor of Milton Freidman capitalism, both of which undermine democracy and equity alike.

[-] 2 points by pleasewakeup (17) 3 years ago

you are SO SO WRONG about the bailout. read Taibbi or Elizabeth Warren. Stop spouting bs that you don't understand. NO BAILOUT WAS NEEDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The government was equipped to provide liquidity directly or take equity stakes in the banks it bailed out. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKIMG ABOUT!

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Read Krugman or any other non-partisan, non-aligned economist.

Regardless, that is hardly the point. The issue is STILL making sure that banks can never again do what they did. The issue is making sure there are laws and regulation with real teeth to reign them in.The issue is the corruption caused by extreme concentrations of power and wealth to a very few, and the undermining of the entirely system of democracy.


[-] 3 points by pleasewakeup (17) 3 years ago

PS: You cannot regulate GS & JPM. They bribe politicians to make laws that allow them to do whatever they want --- Don't you see?!? What they do is "legal" just like concentration camps (or Japanese internment camps) were "legal" .... Politicians will ALWAYS take bribes. Honest ones get shot. WAKE UP to the reality. The system cannot be "fixed".... The answer is either Americans wake up and fight back in the streets together OR stay home and be lead into slavery like sheep to slaughter.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

You have yet to put forward an alternative.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

I couldnt have said it better. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

The system cannot be overthrown. For that to happen overwhelming popular support is required, and that is not where the U.S. is.

On the other hand, the system can not only be fixed, but it HAS BEEN fixed in the past.

The New Deal addressed the very same concerns that OWS is addressing now, and created income distribution equity, upward economic mobility, economic expansion, expanded worker's rights and labor laws, and a depression-free economy for 50 years, until Reagan.

If you want revolution, we will all fail. And the attempt even has the real and likely potential to generate a backlash that would negatively impact reform efforts for another generation. That is a real disservice to everyone, the 99% that this movement seeks to help.

If, on the other hand, we seek the kinds of reforms that everyone views as reasonable (who can argue with wanting to get corruption and money out of politics?) then there is a good chance for moving forward.

You can insist on trying the former, an exercise in narcissism and hubris. Or you can do the less romantic, but more effective work of reform. It's not as sexy, but it is what's needed.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

Yes. If there were proper regulations in place, there wouldn't need to be a debate about whether the bailout was necessary or not.

[-] 0 points by pleasewakeup (17) 3 years ago

Krugman is a status quo hack. You should not consider him unbiased or valuable. He manipulates at an 8th grade level and cannot be taken seriousky. Watch any of these:


[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

He just won the Nobel Prize, and I believe his understanding of economics is a smidge better than yours. I also happen to agree with his assessments, which are frankly more in line with OWS goals and methods than you seem to be. Krugman has also come out in strong support of OWS, so perhaps a little less condescension from you about him would be in order. (And he and Elizabeth Warren agree with each other more than you seem to think.) You appear to be operating from a narrow ideological basis. It's too bad, really.

But as I said, Krugman's analysis is not the point. To repeat: "The issue is STILL making sure that banks can never again do what they did. The issue is making sure there are laws and regulation with real teeth to reign them in.The issue is the corruption caused by extreme concentrations of power and wealth to a very few, and the undermining of the entirely system of democracy."

The fact that you respond to that statement by calling Krugman a hack - which, whether true or not is entirely unrelated - tells me that you seem to desire being proven right and superior more than you care about the movement's success.

By the way, your links don't work.

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 3 years ago

When you recognize the narrative of failed policy, you'll see someone supporting more failed policies of the 1%, or maybe more aptly the top .35%.

[-] 1 points by pleasewakeup (17) 3 years ago

Obama won a Nobel peace prize and then proceeded to wage more war. click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrFeGUGeZEE

let me explain one last time: successful companies, most relevant today: banks, make money (they're successful remember). they use money to drive out competition so they can act monopolistically. they use money to own politicians who then make laws favorable to them or reign in well meaning regulators (like Elizabeth warren)

Krugman (and you) dream of the superhero regulator who will stop them but IT IS A DREAM! They are working class people who can be paid off. How much would it take to pay you off? $100,000? $1 million? $1 billion? there is a number, its not your (or their) fault, you and them have families....

but please please don't listen to Krugman. inflating the dollar into nothing will hurt working class Americans way more than the 1% (who are already, I assure you, in gold) ---

Krugman is a traitor to the 99% because he tricks well-intentiined people like you into thinking the bailout was necessary to avoid economic collapse. THIS IS A HUGE LIE and either he knows it, or he is stupid, either way he is pathetic.

Think outside the box here, pal. Think about direct democracy. think about fighting government infringement on liberty (patriot act). think about effective estate taxes. read John Rawls Theory of Justice. think about putting wall st as*holes in PRISON for RICO and Fraud and then lets talk about an alternative.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

You are wrong on so many levels, including you characterization of Krugman's position (and mine) I don't think I can count them. Your interpretation of Krugman's solution as inflation is, frankly, idiotic. His primary solution has always been investment in job creation, and WPA-like programs in the short term, plus universal health care, plus debt relief for students, plus debt relief for underwater homeowners including a moratorium on foreclosures, plus steeply graduated progressive taxes on the wealthy, plus re-establishment of Glass-Steagal, etc. Gee, sounds like MOST of the very things OWS wants.

Yes, we all understand how monopolies work. Both Krugman and I get it. But the way to change that is by changing the system, not throwing it out the window. It may be a less romantic, less ideal, less utopian solution, but what you propose will never happen, because you just don't get how completely rejected that notion is - rightly or wrongly; it doesn't matter which - by the overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens. You ask me to think "outside the box" but you really need to think outside yourself.

If you want to change the very basis of this country's system from representative democracy to direct democracy, and think that such a change can happen in your lifetime, you're living in a world of delusion so huge that medication is to be recommended.

Direct democracy, anarcho/syndicatism, libertarian socialism, and so on, may ultimately become the way of the world, and are in SOME ways (absolutely not all) preferable IN THEORY to what we have now. It doesn't matter in the least. It's pie in the sky. You will never convince a critical mass of people in this country to suddenly change their hundreds-year-old system of governance for another. That will never happen.

Sorry to throw cold water on your fantasies, but the issue is to fix the current system, not throw it out. It will be hard work, and the odds are long that anything substantial will be accomplished, and it will likely take at least a decade to make it happen, but it is doable. It has been done before (the New Deal, and the Great Society). And it is doable because getting the money out of politics (which is the root of all the problems we see today) is something 99% of the people can support. No revolution can occur without a critical mass of such support. Those revolutions that have happened without overwhelming popular support have another name: tyranny.

[-] 1 points by GamesStrategyGamblingScience (6) from Elmhurst, IL 3 years ago

The 1% HATE inflation because they have the money, and the more money you have the more inflation costs you. I don't know about you, but my net worth is negative... Devaluing their imaginary money is one way of leveling the playing field. That counts as radical thinking to an inside-the-box thinker like Krugman, but collapse of the global financial system is inevitable at this point (esteemed economists like Roubini agree). A full overhaul is needed, including a new currency created by a National Infrastructure Bank. When The System comes down and they try for more bailouts, the People shouldn't accept less.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

I read that blog post the day it originally was posted. Krugman was talking about inflation in terms of everything else I mentioned, as opposed to imposing austerity (which is what the governments are doing, disastrously). He was trying to counter the false fears, the myths, about inflation that the banks were putting forth so they wouldn't be subject to losses by potentially un-bank friendly actions by Angela Merkel or the IMF. He was countering that mythology of inflation=collapse that was driving a contraction of social services, and was hurting millions of people. He was talking about how inflation effects long term national debt, how it blunts the impact of deficits, (a purely objective and obvious fact) and fears of inflation should not to be used as an excuse to hurt people by instituting draconian austerity measures while protecting banking interests.

You point to that one article without that context or understanding, ignoring the scores and scores in which he talks about the need for job creation, exposes crony corrupt capitalism, attacks neo-liberalism (the Chicago school, Freidman) defends workers and unions, pushes for universal health care, and on and on and on. That you would do so is utterly disingenuous, and either represents the fact that you don't know anything about the person's positions you condemn, or you are making a conscious attempt to deceive. Either way, it makes you completely, utterly untrustworthy.

What's even more interesting is that you STILL have not responded to the substance of the points I made, and are still stuck on demonizing Krugman, which is totally irrelevant.

You have still not put forward what you propose, choosing instead to repeatedly slander a man who is among the strongest SUPPORTERS of OWS in the American media. You seem to think that by suggesting reading lists, the majority of this country will magically want to throw out representative democracy in favor of your system, WHICH YOU HAVE YET TO ARTICULATE.

You strike me as someone very, very young, someone who is more bound up in a recent discovery of theory, or a sense of how very special he is because he understands the neo-Hegelian roots of Anarcho-syndicalist post modernism, etc. You don't begin to look outside of your ideals to see what would actually be effective. Everything is all or nothing for you; overthrow the entire system, not work to fix it, and fuck anyone who doesn't agree with your version of the ideal. (Never mind that in a mass movement, one must actually garner mass support.... such a pesky little detail). You live completely in your head, and completely IN LOVE with your own head. In other words, you are a narcissist.

One last thing: you make assumptions - based on nothing - that others haven't already thought "outside of the box" and haven't determined, based on actual experience, that some alternatives are unworkable. For example, you assumed that I know nothing about the workings of direct democracy. Yet I lived in a community built around anarcho/syndicalist (socialist/libertarian) principles for seven years, a place in which every major and minor issue alike was decided entirely by direct democracy. (And I loved every minute of the 7 years, but also know that it is a system completely impossible for largre-scale culture.) Your assumption of my ignorance points only to your arrogance.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

They did NOT need a bailout.We did not need our treasury robbed by the politicians and wallstreet bankers. It was Greed plain and simple that motivated them to want more money...more power!

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Most economists, non-partisan, non-aligned, disagree.

But that's hardly the point. What led to that in the first place is the point. That the banks got bailed out while the people continue to be foreclosed upon, and unemployed, and uninsured, and the banks gathering even more power and influence SINCE they got bailed out is the point. The underlying corruption is the real problem.

But let's say you're right and I'm wrong. The issue is not looking back on it, but how to move forward so it never happens, either by choice or necessity, ever again.

I think on that we are agreed.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

you're partly right and Im right.

[-] 1 points by pleasewakeup (17) 3 years ago

economists?????????? who gives a fck what economists think? why do you? do you have an inferiority complex because you don't feel academically accomplished enough? economists are as*holes. if they knew anything about economics of finance they would be retired in Hawaii and not adding their stupid name to your list of agreeing with the private corrupt anti American EVIL FED. EVIL.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Doctors???????? Who gives a fck what doctors think when one is ill? Who gives a fck what scientists think about evolution or particle physics? Who gives a fck what architects think about load-bearing walls when putting up a large building?

If you don't understand what an economist does, (and by your comment you clearly show that you don't) you have no legitimate voice in a movement that is at its heart about economics.

For the second or third time, you ignored the what was being said in the post your responded to.(Here's a reminder: "What led to that in the first place is the point", and "But let's say you're right and I'm wrong................".) Considering the most generous view of your oversight is that you consistently misunderstand what is being said, how, then, do you think you can be taken seriously in your analysis of and especially prescriptions for economics and political systems?

I really don't know what axe you are grinding. I don't really care. But I know that your agenda hurts, not helps, OWS.

[-] 2 points by Ubuntu (34) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

I agree ,sort of, but the bailout was not about them getting rich or accumulating more money. At the level of economy they are at the accumulation of money is no longer the point. Their power comes from control, population control. They took the money not to get rich but to instigate or catalyze the relationship with the population that we see now. In essence they were removing money that we depend upon at our level, from circulation in order to direct an emotional/psychological response within the population. The way they have set up the system is so that the top few are above wealth, beyond it entirely. They could give or take a million and their life would not change a bit. So why do they want more mone? Why do they get bonuses? Because if they harvest their money at strategic moments they can send the general population into survival mode or into a comfort zone. They can creat feelings of security amongst the masses or feelings of dread and fear of the future. They have set it up so the top few can create as sort of submission hold upon the general population. They do this much like slave owners except a little more indirect. They can own you by owning all of your property and your money. That money was printed from a loan in the first place. So for every dollar that exists we owe the top few something. Thus they own all the money and owning money, or having the world in debt to them, is the main objective of these people. In their mind if they own our money they own us and reserve the right to hold us accountable to that debt. This from their perspective justifies controlling the population. We are just renting their dollars from them. Money is just a mechanism of control to them. After all how can we pay our debt to the Federal Reserve if they loan out more than they print. So in essence America and perhaps the world is just a slave plantation to them. They created the economic system so it would be that way. They don't need more money and they know that but the one thing that stops them from ever losing their stature in society is that they control the flow of money. Imagine how it was before this type of currency. How about when people used, shells, livestock, or gold? this type of manipulation was not even possible back then because no human being controled the limit of wealth. Nature provided the limits and the value.


[-] 0 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 3 years ago

Corporations that are public companies have to please\answer to the shareholders. Those are the ones who demand the profits. Who do you think are the largest share holders?? In most cases, these are pension funds (union and non-union) and 401k plans. Therefore, any of you who have either a pension or a 401k are party to the greed you are protesting.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

don't have a 401k anymore.

[-] 1 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 3 years ago

Well, you are in the minority. Some of the largest share holders are union and state pensions. That covers a huge number of people. Those people want their retirements, so they have a vested interest in the stock market doing well.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 3 years ago

The circumstances behind my not having a 401k anymore are not available on this thread. It is certainly not because I don't want one. However your best value is precious metals and stones.

401ks have been getting raided and eliminated by very greedy people...hence Emron etc!! The housing bubble busted.The markets with their "fake money" can crash at anytime.

My mother always said "pay your mortgage first so you can have somplace to lay your head" Homes are not comoditiies,they are human necessaties.

As my father always said,"show your wealth on your women"... jewelry! Very good value for very hardtimes. Eventually gold,silver and diamonds will be the currency.

[-] 1 points by Ubuntu (34) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

I don't have either and never have.

[-] 0 points by Uspatriot5000 (128) 3 years ago

But most people do.

[-] 2 points by GamesStrategyGamblingScience (6) from Elmhurst, IL 3 years ago


[-] 4 points by talkinboutarevolution (54) 3 years ago

The CEO's and some below them don't have to be multi billionaires is the thing.

[-] 0 points by ComunistUSA (58) 3 years ago

And you don't have to be poor. Whats your point?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

And you don't have to be a blind fool.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 3 years ago

ebay vs newmark (craigslist), a corporation cannot be for-profit-alongside-society, it is legally required to be for-profit to shareholders. So technically I don't agree with you. A corporation can have a for-profit-alongside-society stance if laws we're changed to reflect that. As they stand now, even if a CEO makes a decision that he/she sees mutually beneficial to the corp. and society, he could be sued on grounds of not putting shareholder-profits first. That's stupid in my book.

[-] 3 points by woof68 (3) from Montgomery, NY 3 years ago

Corporations do not need to get FAT. When you and I eat, do we eat so much that we get bloated and fat? Or do we eat a normal portion? If the answer is the former, then we have a problem. The same is true with corporations.

[-] -1 points by ComunistUSA (58) 3 years ago

That's the awesome thing about America, you can eat as much as you want.

[-] 3 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 3 years ago

The problem is humans work for money not for the sake of humanity.

[-] 1 points by quercus (93) 3 years ago

'the problem is humans work for money not for the sake of humanity'

humanity is an evolve-ongoing abstraction.

money is a material object.

to confuse the two is called REIFICATION.

the question is what is a human worth? what price humanity?

remember: work makes freedom

[-] 3 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 3 years ago

I do not agree with you. There is no price on humanity. the bottom line is humans should work to insure the survival of the human race not because they want nice things or because they have to do it. They should do it because they love the human race and want the human race to prosper. We as a human race should be free. No one should tell you what to do. YOU should make the right choice.

[-] 0 points by ComunistUSA (58) 3 years ago

stop telling me what to do.

[-] 2 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 3 years ago

should is not telling you what do. I am merely suggesting.

should/SHo͝od/ Verb:

Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions: "he should have been careful".
Indicating a desirable or expected state: "by now students should be able to read".
[-] 0 points by ComunistUSA (58) 3 years ago

well played ; )

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 3 years ago

A corporation can make good profits while also paying its employees livable wages and decent benefits and treating them with respect. Doing so isn't rocket science and isn't impossible. You are saying that in order to make profits, corporations must shit on all its employees, except for the ones at the top.... and you are completely wrong.

Take a look at Trader Joe's as one example.

[-] 1 points by GamesStrategyGamblingScience (6) from Elmhurst, IL 3 years ago

You m